2. Cheech & Chong's Next Movie (by far, the best of the C&C films, if you want a truly surreal experience, though, the bowdlerized version they showed on broadcast Fox has to be one of the top ones. They managed to elide all mentions of drug use from a Cheech & Chong film, and somehow transformed the huge bag of pot that Cheech's cousin Red was carrying from pot into diamonds. The sheer audacity and stupidity of creating a version of a Cheech & Chong film that has somehow magically become a non-druggie film just boggles the mind. I doubt you could find this version anymore, I'm sure the DVD version is the original, and I doubt Fox, or anyone else would ever broadcast it again, so, if you saw it, you know exactly what I'm talking about, and if you haven't seen it, then you don't know what you're missing)

3. Dazed and Confused (More about the end of high school than about getting high, and Rickey mentions two people who really didn't have big roles in the film, where the biggest star of the film was clearly Abraham Lincoln head)

4. Friday (seriously, any stoner comedy list that doesn't have this classic included, is very, very misguided, or at least very, very white)

5. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (More about the American Dream, than about getting high, but the NPH stuff saves this from being stupid and lame, instead of stupid and awesome)

6. Zardoz (I know you may object to calling this a stoner comedy, but seriously, this film is hilarious, and everyone in it had to have been high as a kite while making it, plus Sean Connery in big red diapers)

7. Topper (Alcohol is a drug, dammit, and this film is damn funny, and seeing ghosts seems pretty trippy to me, so I'm calling this a stoner comedy, and if you don't like it, tough)

8. Pulp Fiction (The first and only 'heroin comedy' ever) UPDATE: Bill in the comments reminds me that Pulp Fiction isn't the first or only 'heroin comedy' as Liquid Sky exists (I just didn't remember it, and when I did remember it, remembered not liking it much), also this review makes a case for Trainspotting being a 'heroin comedy', but I'd classify it more as a drama with occasional comic and absurdist elements.

9. Head (The Monkees film, this film is trippier than it has any right to be, and despite being as dated as hell, has some pretty absurd moments that approach being actually kind of funny)

10. Pineapple Express (This film tentatively holds a space in the top ten, Franco and Rogen together again seems like brilliant casting, and I don't see how this film could possibly go wrong). Turns out it does deserve a spot here, it's a pleasingly goofy, yet strangely violent picture that brings together a lot of talent for a lot of silliness. Franco and Rogen really should do a comedy together on an annual basis, a la Hope/Crosby or Abbott/Costello.

Bonus Pick #11 Smiley Face (that's right, this list goes to 11, and even though the characters in Spinal Tap are likely drug-addled, I'm not counting that as a 'druggie comedy') Anna Faris nails the previously overlooked, hot chick who happens to be a stoner, stereotype that too few comedies explore. She's fantastic in this film, and her misadventure is entertaining.

19 April 2010

Flawed computer models may have exaggerated the effects of an Icelandic volcano eruption that has grounded tens of thousands of flights, stranded hundreds of thousands of passengers and cost businesses hundreds of millions of euros.

The power of the bureaucrat is the power of no. Give a bureaucrat an opportunity to say no, and they'll say it. The calculus a bureacrat uses to assess risk has nothing to do with reason, and everything to do with power. This is at minimum a $1B mistake that disrupted hundreds of thousands of lives all because a tiny, previously unheralded sub-group of a UN sub-committee (The VAAC) got a raging regulatory hard on. I would bet good money that nothing will change at the VAAC, if anything, the discovery of their awesome power will only excite them to throw an even bigger monkeywrench into international aviation next time they're given an excuse.

Europe has decided unelected commissions, committees, study groups, quasi-autonomous non-government organizations, and their ilk should be welcome to run roughshod over the rights of citizens and sovereign governments to make their own decisions regarding risk. I would hope the next time one of our Cascade Volcanoes spewed in a similar manner, that our FAA would question any recommendations coming from the VAAC much more thoroughly than the European Union did.

In the European Union model of government, individuals don't have the right to say yes in order to override the bureaucrat's no.

Regulations exist for a reason, and bureaucrats must have some power, but that power should be limited, and subordinate to elected officials. Where individuals assume risks that only put themselves in harms way, that should be considered a basic human right (Pursuit of Happiness, and all).

Eurocrats have forgotten that, and the Obama Administration would like to pretend that the Pursuit of Happiness at the core of our founding doesn't also imply the notion of assumed risk.

This isn't a modest, or immodest proposal, it's more a suggestion on how we can save the time, expense, and waste involved with the decennial census as required in the United States Constitution.

It's time to amend that provision away. The 2010 Census' pricetag is $14,000,000,000 and counting. I personally find the ad campaigns to push compliance with the count irksome. The 'get counted so you can get on the government assistance gravy train' angle they have been pushing is especially grotesque. It's ridiculous to suggest that communities won't know how to allocate services and budgets until they get the numbers back from the federal government every ten years. Well run towns find ways to keep track of usage patterns without house to house written surveys, and poorly run towns aren't going to be helped by knowing that their population has increased or decreased by a certain head count. Private enterprises manage to anticipate the needs of shifting, growing, and shrinking communities, and there are dozens of ways they can explore demographic patterns on a moment by moment basis.

There's no compelling reason for the federal government (beyond apportionment) to have an exact head count of how many people live in the country. Local governments need this data, but let them pay for their own data collection, and leave it up to each locale how detailed they want their data to be. I bet the current $14B+ budget wasted on creating this massive federal bureaucracy to do the current head count could have been produced at a fraction of the cost (less than $1B) with existing private surveys used by marketers, businesses, and the like. People opt in to allowing a whole cloud of data to follow them around everywhere they go, there's no reason in this day and age to duplicate a fraction of this data at a large multiple of the cost.

That covers why we should ditch the Census, but there is one function that the Census provides that can't be replaced on an ad hoc basis from community to community. While devising an amendment to ditch the Census, we also must include a provision for reforming how the House of Representatives is apportioned.

My proposal for apportionment is to count votes, not population, and to leave it up to each state to figure out some of the specific details. The details that would be the same from state to state would be as follows:

I'd end 'winner take all', instead each candidate who receives in excess of 5,000 votes would get at least one vote share. Vote shares would be allocated for each multiple of 5,000 votes a candidate receives, so if a district had 4 serious candidates, and their totals were 37,000 for A, 19,500 for B, 5,200 for C, and 3,700 for D the votes that those candidates would take to Congress with them would be A gets 7 votes, B gets 3 votes, C gets 1 vote, and D (along with any other folks who receive votes) just misses becoming a Representative.

This does a couple of worthwhile things, in my opinion. First, it makes the Census unecessary, as votes are all that counts, not population. Second, it gives political constituencies beyond just DEM and GOP a valid shot at sending folks to Congress. Third, it discourages gerrymandering as it's in each state's interest to maximize the overall vote total, otherwise their representatives will have fewer votes to take with them to Congress when they get elected. This would encourage both major parties to actively campaign in every district, and it would give minor and local interest parties a path towards representation in DC.

To prevent less honest states from turning out the dead to increase their vote total (I'm staring at you, Illinois), every state would be entitled to verify the vote total of any other state. Either, most the states will collude to inflate their totals, or the threat of litigation will prevent states from doing anything too nefarious with the way they come up with their totals.

The number of Representatives would vary from Congress to Congress, as would the total number of votes each Representative would wield. Some states might send dozens, or hundreds of reps, each with only a few votes each, as a way to give as many citizens a direct voice in the federal government. Other states might feel better served by having fewer representatives, each endowed with impressive vote totals, by having few or no districts.

Last election, far too many of the seats in the House were occupied by incumbents who went virtually unchallenged. Under the new rules, if a party with a big demographic advantage in a district ran an uninspiring incumbent, they might easily dominate the election, but they'd also be suppressing turnout, and they'd cost that rep influence when they return to DC.

Some years there might be more than 5,000 reps, others there might be fewer than 1,000 reps, depending how each state sets up their rules and the whims of the electorate. With so many folks potentially being in the House, you'd need to trim way back on all the perks and privileges that have accrued to representatives (a situation most voters would welcome, I suspect). I see a 5,000+ person House of Representatives as a feature, not a flaw, as that would greatly increase the cost and complexity of lobbying. Rather than staying permanently in DC, and only occasionally visiting their home states when they need to grub for votes, under this system, the entire House would meet only a few times a year, for only a short time, and spend the rest of their time back home amongst the folks that sent them to DC.

The current system doesn't lead to an excess of democracy, instead it concentrates power to too few who hold onto it, for too long. I think this reform would break that cycle, and go a long way towards returning a notion of service to the House, rather than privilege.

18 April 2010

Hello Everybody! It's time for a weekly recap of some stuff that managed to avoid wrongness. Let the effulgence of aintwrongness cleanse your soul.

Eyjafjallajokull, You Ain't Wrong, for spewing your ejecta all over the European continent. It's good from time to time, for nature to remind humanity exactly which is which's bitch.

Nick Clegg, You Ain't Wrong, for whooping ass and taking names during the first ever presidential style debate enjoyed by the British electorate. Should this lead to a hung parliament, or a Labour victory, it'll probably be a bad thing for Britons in the long run, but in the short term, having the party leaders, and by extension the parties, realize that they need to be responsive to their constituencies is a good thing.

Amanda Flowers, You Ain't Wrong, for ummmm, your condition. You are wrong for whinging about it, I'm sure there's a way to monetize it, so just think outside of the box, so to speak.

John Dvorak, You Ain't Wrong, the efforts by the likes of Sen. John Kerry won't advance real Net Neutrality, but instead is just a powergrab and an attempt to bring back the 'fairness doctrine'.

Jerusalem Post Editorial Staff, You Ain't Wrong, the Obama Administration isn't your friend (though not quite an enemy). Your nation celebrated its 62nd Independence Day this past week, and the dangers faced by Israel are as grave as they've ever been.

Flickr Blog, You Ain't Wrong, for highlighting some very nice Cherry Blossom Time photos.

Wu Yulu, You Ain't Wrong, for building yourself a rickshaw pulling robot. Your bewigged massage-bot, on the other hand, that sucker's just plain creepy...

Natalie Tran of communitychannel fame, You Ain't Wrong, film hackers are ridiculous.

All you smelly ass hipster doofuses out in Indio, You Ain't Wrong, for listening to a phenomenal amount of great music this weekend, but I still hate you. If I were aged 25-35, I'd probably make Coachella an annual trek, but at my advanced age, it doesn't have the same appeal that the festivals of my youth did (the music is still appealing, but not the 'festival' atmosphere).

Neil Armstrong, You Ain't Wrong, President Obama's recently announced redirection of NASA sucks, and is politically motivated, not based on science or engineering. NASA has problems, Obama's plan won't fix them.

Americans, You Ain't Wrong, for gathering all over the country on Tax Day and voicing your displeasure with the massive debts being run up by the current White House. It may take decades to reverse what Obama is attempting to accomplish in his four short years. The active pushback will mitigate the trouble the Obama Admistration can cause. Keep it up.

That's plenty of Aint Wrongness out there, aintwrongness spans the globe, but even with all the aintwrongness out there, Anti Aint Wrongness still asserts its nastiness like an irritation in a place you can't itch in public. This week's exemplar of antiaintwrongness is none other than The President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and his pissy dismissal of the rising tide of public resentment at his attempt to saddle future generations with mounds and mounds of endless debt. Keep it up through November, the people will remember, and reward you and your party by sending a good chunk of your congressional allies out of their cushy jobs and on to their plush tushies.

16 April 2010

It's that time again, time for the "real" NBA season to start. Looks like it's Cleveland's year to get back to the Finals, it's hard to imagine a scenario where any teams in the Eastern Conference can take four games from the Ohio LeBronaliers. The Western Conference is a bit muddier given how horrible the Lakers have looked, how good the Suns look at times, and how deceptively solid the Mavericks team can be (while at other times, faltering).

Basically, nothing is going to get in the way of an Orlando-Cleveland Eastern Conference rematch. Out west, despite the problems they've had, I think the Lakers do have that extra gear they can kick it into, and they won't have any series of more than five games as they return to the Finals for the third year in a row.

So, that sets up David Stern's (and Nike's) wet dream finals of the LA Kobes versus the CLE LeBrons. It'd be easy to pick against the Lakers, given how poorly they've performed against Cleveland this season, and given that they just aren't playing with that much hunger. Once a title gets in grasp, though, I think their veterans, and especially their coaching, will give the Lakers the tools to defeat the better team.

So here are my predictions:

Western Conference, 1st Round:

LAL over OKC in 5 games.
The Lakers will split the first two games, winning Sunday, losing Tuesday, then sweep the rest of the series. OKC has depth, and skill, but they're too young to get it done, and will get frustrated and not perform up to their ability.

DAL over SAS in 4 games.
Despite how well Ginobli has been playing, the Spurs are too old, too creaky, and with Duncan's defensive decline, they have nobody to contain Nowitzki, who will go wild in this series sweep.

PHO over POR in 5 games.
Phoenix has too much offense, and Portland with the latest injury to Roy, just don't have enough healthy bodies to hold off Phoenix, they best they can hope for is to win one on their home floor.

UTA over DEN in 4 games.
Despite falling to the 5 seed, and completely forgetting to show up in a home game to end the season that made the difference between a 3 seed and a 5 seed, they will dominate against a Nuggets team that has too many knuckleheads on their team to be able to succeed down the stretch in a playoff game (despite last year's success with mostly the same group of knuckleheads, this year without their knuckleheaded coach to guide them, they'll be even more knuckleheaded than usual).

Western Conference Semis:

LAL over UTA in 6 games
Utah without Kirilenko don't match up with the Lakers all that well, especially if Farmar finds a way to play a little bit of defense, and Artest shows up in this series. Should be a bunch of close games, but in the end I think the Champs will prevail.

PHO over DAL in 5 games
These will be some high scoring contests. While Dallas would prefer not to run with Phoenix, they won't be able to help themselves, and in an up and down fastbreaking game, then Nowitzki becomes a liability against Stoudemire rather than an asset. If the Suns are able to dictate the style of play in this series, they'll dominate, and I think they will.

Western Conference Finals:

LAL over PHO in 5 games
This'll be a fun one. By the time this series rolls around, Bynum should be healthy(ish), and without Robin Lopez in the middle, both Bynum and Gasol should put up big numbers. The Suns are the only 50+ win squad that the Lakers have been able to consistently beat this season, and I think that will continue in the playoffs.

Eastern Conference 1st Round, 2nd round, Finals:

The Eastern Conference is going to be pretty predictable, and come down to CLE-ORL, so I'll skip the detailed write-ups.

1st Round
CLE over CHI 5 games (Bulls can pull off one home win, that's it)
ORL over CHA 6 games (Superior coaching will give the Bobcats two wins, but that's it)
ATL over MIL 4 games (With Bogut out, the Bucks have no chance)
MIA over BOS 5 games (The Cs, suck, period)

2nd Round
CLE over MIA 5 games (No contest, 4 easy wins, with one close loss for the Cavs)
ORL over ATL 7 games (The Hawks will push Orlando to the limit, but the Magic will prevail)

Eastern Finals
CLE over ORL 4 games (Cavs will dominate, and destroy the Magic, revenge for 09)

Now, for the sexy, NBA FINALS:

Defending Champion Los Angeles Lakers will upset the regular season's best Cleveland Cavaliers in 6 games (3 of which will be exciting)

Game 1 CLE by +15 points. The champs will come out flat, and get embarrassed on the road.
Game 2 LAL by less than 5. The Lakers will win a close one on the road, putting the pressure on Cleveland to win at least one in LA to stay alive.
Game 3 CLE by +20 points. The Lakers will open at Staples flatter than month old champagne
Game 4 LAL by 2. A last minute shot, by someone other than Kobe, will even the series
Game 5 LAL by +10. The Lakers will have their first easy victory of the series.
Game 6 LAL by less than 3. With two games left in Cleveland, and only needing one victory, the Lakers will pull off the upset and win a close, ugly, foul-marred game where neither team breaks 90, and neither team leads by more than five at any point in the contest.

Sorry, Cleveland, despite the talent edge, despite having the world's greatest basketball player, despite those advantages, the Lakers will find a way to win in the finals and give Phil his 11th ring, and Kobe his 5th, and the Lakers their 16th title. It will suck for y'all even more when LeBron bolts from Cleveland this summer.

15 April 2010

Yes, yes it's still on. Will get back to blogging in earnest on Sunday, and will try to come up with some sort of NBA Playoff thing for Friday.

Been taking a break, to recharge the blogging batteries. There will be Aint Wrongness on Sunday, but LOL Obama's and Photos will be occasional, rather than daily from now on. Rather post something when there's something worth posting, rather than posting just to post.

08 April 2010

Reagan, looking friendly and relaxed, at the entrance to his Library. Might get out and find something worth shooting tomorrow, so should be something other than Reagan Library snaps for Friday's photo.

Obama needs a Dumbass Czar. Kurtwood Smith following him around, saying, "Dumbass!" every time he opens his mouth. #TCOT #TLOT

I would like to add, that there should also be a little shock collar around his dangly bits that gets triggered whenever he answers questions with responses that take longer than five minutes (with the intensity increasing each minute beyond five). That would do him, and the world, a lot of good.

They've never had a black actor on the show who could play both intimidating and funny at the same time. They've all been skinny, with Kenan being the sole exception to the skinny black dude rule, but he's rolly-polly, and not at all physically imposing.

They've never had a physically imposing guy on the show in general, so a non-wimp brings a great range of comic possibilities that they haven't had a chance to explore.

They'd run into trouble if all he did was menacing type roles, but with his looks, him in a bow-tie playing a milquetoast would be just as funny as him being the angry scary guy.

Hire him already Lorne Michaels, the show needs him, desperately. Also, he'd make a great Michelle Obama...

(also, I still say they need to go and get Seth Green, too, pairing big ass Terry Crews with tiny ass Seth Green opens up a myriad of comic possibilities)

At least I know one person who might find this pleasing/disturbing, this one is for you MKHammer!

After doing it, I noticed that this blue-faced Obama comes dangerously close to looking a bit too much like a "black faced" Obama. Not much can be done about that, other than having not done this at all. The green Obamas done for St. Pat's didn't read quite as 'minstrel-y' as this one does, I think cause I was lazier and colored over his eyes and mouth.

I know the intent in my heart is pure (or at least purely satirical, rather than racial), so it stays. If we can't laugh at the President, and his supposed mega-fandom for all sports, then what can we laugh at?

(also if you haven't already noticed, I make some jokes here that I don't at Flickr, and vice versa, so if you want the full LOL Obama experience you really have to see these both places and read the full descriptions over there)

A reminder, that we faced evil, unblinkingly, with strength. We met, and dealt, but did not surrender the option to build defensive weapons. The 'failure' at Reykjavik was a key component in reducing the threat that the Soviet Union posed, and helped hasten the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Reagan was willing to deal, but he was not willing to compromise.

If only we had a President again who reserved that attitude against our adversaries, rather than against his political opponents.

The seeds for Obama's defeat in 2012 are being sown, and watered by his own incompetence, hopefully he won't do too much damage between now and then.

The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing 'negative security assurance' by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapons states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

You goddamn idiot, Mr. President. "This revised assurance" goes farther than any statement by any past President, even ones as cojones deficient as James Earl Carter, in neutering our ability as a nation to meet the threat that comes from belligerent nations and bad actors within nations.

That we are a country with the capacity to wipe out any other country, and that we have leaders crazy enough to do it if provoked, has been a cornerstone of United States diplomacy and self defense since those two bombs we dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the leading single economy, top military, and most prosperous state in the world, we are juicy target for any country, or group within a country, for some nasty bit of assymmetrical warfare directed at our population.

The threat that we would meet a WMD attack by a state, or state sponsored group (or even state tolerated group) with a WMD attack of our own on a biblical scale has been an integral part of our defense. That is, until we elected President Obama. Thanks a lot, the inevitable attack on a big city will be firmly and unequivocally your fault (and as a resident of likely target #2 or #3, with NYC always being target #1 for the crazies, I'd rate LA and DC neck and neck as 2nd or 3rd likely, a special personal thanks Mr. President).

The conventional wisdom regarding assymmetric warfare is that it favors the small over the big (David v Goliath), but the threat of an overwhelming and highly assymmetric response from our military given a major provocation used to be one of our big advantages over those weenies in Europe. Even while protesting us, and calling our leaders 'cowboys', Europeans knew that those 'cowboys' they derided were what kept them as safe as they were, and that our willingness to be more belligerent than the craziest of belligerents was good for democracies across the globe. Obama wants to dismantle that. Idiot, I guess it will be up to Sarkozy and the French to play the world's crazyman, now.

I can't believe we elected someone who ate up all that Soviet sponsored No Nukes crap that was being spewed across college campuses in the 70s and 80s, and thought that'd be sensible as a guiding principle for our defense posture. And just in case you think I'm making up the Soviet angle, from Time Magazine in 1983:

The question of Soviet influence becomes difficult to call when counterespionage officials try to uncover KGB links to the antinuclear movement in the U.S. and Western Europe. By CIA reckoning, the Soviets spend roughly $3 billion to $4 billion each year on overt and covert propaganda activities. According to a State Department official, as much as $600 million may have been spent so far on the peace offensive. Using national Communist parties or recognized Communist-front organizations like the World Peace Council, the Kremlin has been able to channel funds to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source. Western intelligence experts believe that the mass movement in opposition to new NATO missiles in Europe probably was not Soviet-inspired, but they fear that the Kremlin's active measures have given the movement greater momentum.

So this latest bit of Obama-nonsense seems like it's just the 'radical' Occidental student (as pictured above) peeking out from the moderate facade that he wrapped himself in during his campaign. He's stuck in the mindset of the Vietnam-addled, USA must apologize for being mighty, late 70s, and the Reagan hating campus 'intelligentsia' with their, how dare we have a leader who is willing to defend our position in the world and recognize the Soviets as evil, mindset of the early 80s. Hard to believe that the subsequent decades haven't taught Obama the lessons that everyone else seems to understand. He's trying to undermine everything Reagan accomplished, both domestically and globally. He has a compliant media, and Democratic Party leadership willing to follow him to doom. Seems like the rank and file is starting to balk, and more importantly, voters are seeing red, but will that anger stick around till November? Depends on events.

I suspect Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must be scrambling to move up her exit from this sinking ship, and she's going to stage, as soon as possible, a very public conflict between the White House and the State Department so that she can resign as a sensible Hawk while Obama looks like the naive Dove. I don't see her sticking loyally by Obama and putting aside a lifetime of ambition to defer to this jerk, but you never know, maybe she trusts in him and took the job because she believes in the direction that Obama will lead.

For some unknown reason, there was a big spike in traffic to my Flickr photos taken at the LA Auto Show these past few years. Probably just some bot hitting the all of flickr, but here's a Honda P-NUT for you, anwyay.

Clearly, the organizer of this event, Ty McDowell, has lived most her life in some alternate reality where she wasn't aware how this sort of display would be consumed by a significant portion of spectators (my guess, that alternate reality probably goes by the name of Bowdoin Gender and Women's Studies Department, but can't find hide nor hair of her elsewise on the internet, so who knows)

Here's her reaction as described in the local rag:

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.

However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers.

She's angry because people spectated while she chose to make a spectacle of herself and her compatriots.

If it's important for her to make toplessness normal for both men and women, then don't march in numbers Easter Weekend through the center of town. Folks took snaps, leered, and possibly jeered (though doesn't sound like there was jeering, just creepy leering), because it is unusual, because it was intentionally staged to be a spectacle, and because BOOBIES!!!

Sorry, boobies make some men a bit infantile, or at least juvenile. Male toplessness will never be equal to female toplessness in our society, get used to it. People discriminate between male torsos and female torsos, and that's that.

A suggestion for McDowell, for the next march, seed a few (obviously) under 18 year old girls in the mix, then any photos snapped by any creepy guys won't be publishable anywhere given our overly aggressive interpretation of what deserves to be described as 'kiddie porn'. That would turn the oglers from creeps to criminals the way our laws are currently interpreted.

Nudity shouldn't equal pornography in anybody's mind, yet that's how nudity is now treated in our culture (and that's a recent development). Make that nude person under the age of eighteen, and suddenly that nudity isn't just mere pornography (which is still ridiculous), but that nudity is transformed into outright obscenity (which is really ridiculous).

So, if you are going to challenge one social norm, might as well attack another one while you are at it.

I personally don't see a problem with women letting their areolae air out in public (and this is really about nipples and areolae, cause you can tool around in a bikini top that exposes everything but in every corner of this country already), and I doubt there are many public prosecutors who would charge a woman for letting hers free in a non-lascivious manner regardless of what the statutes say in that jurisdiction.

Beaches hereabouts for awhile were unoffcially topless. It wasn't explicitly stated that it was allowed, but folks (especially foreign tourists) weren't hassled on the beach if they chose to expose their breasts in a non-sexual way. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your attitude), that has gone by the wayside, and lifeguards are supposed to discourage the practice again, even when it's a lithe young frenchwoman showing off her moneymakers (and that's a travesty if you ask me).

Also, apparently, aliens totally dig it when women show off their areolae in public. I know this because the person behind National Go Topless day (and there is such a thing, though this recent thing in Maine appears not to be part of that) is the head of the Raelians. GoTopless.org (link shows some shots from past GoTopless days, so in the world we live that makes the site NSFW, which is another ridiculous thing) was founded by Maitreya Rael.

Here are few shots by a professional photographer taken at the Venice Beach event last year (also, NSFW given the idiotic and nervous attitudes people have in workplaces around the possibility of even the appearance of some sort of perception of sexual harrassment, but despite finding it stupid, I understand why human resources departments institute these sort of policies given our litigious society).

Seems like there are bigger things to worry about, whichever way your personal preferences fall on this matter.

04 April 2010

You Ain't Wrong was a feature at this blog, early on, long ago dropped away, but is being resurrected today, and will be featured subsequent Sundays for the forseeable future.

For those who don't remember 'You Ain't Wrong', it's a collection of links to people around the web who exhibited exemplary aintwrongness during the week that was. Aintwrongness isn't just a mangling of the English language, it's also a way of life. Aintwrongness is doing your thing, while not impeding other folks ability to do their thing. Aintwrongness is recognizing when you might be trending towards douchiness and altering course away from douchebagdom. Aintwrongness isn't exclusively American, but more often than not, the American people are the most aintwrong people on this globe.

On to the aintwrongness...

M. Simon at Power and Control, You Ain't Wrong, obama's recently announced plan regarding expanding drilling is all smoke, mirrors, and half-truths. That he can get away with this nonsense due to a compliant and uncritical media is the antithesis of aintwrongness.

Dr. Helen Smith, You Ain't Wrong, questioning the wisdom of some social conservatives panicky attitude towards pornography. Free speech must protect speech you dislike as well as speech you like. Pornography is speech (when it's not outright obscene), and must be protected. I think Smith is on to something when she suspects that the real issue is controlling male sexuality. Any activity can become a wedge between partners in a weak relationship, just as healthy relationships have room for each partner to have quality 'alone time', even if that alone time involves questionable activities such as knitting, reading Dan Brown novels, or 'self-abuse' while watching videos of otherwise naked people pleasing each other while wearing animal masks (hey, don't judge).

Hortense at Jezebel, You Ain't Wrong, expressing disapproval at celebrities who claim afflictions they don't actually have. Realizing Moby and Miley Cyrus are both idiots in their own special ways doesn't take great insight, but it's a notion that deserves expressing, nevertheless.

The Bird and The Bee, You Ain't Wrong, in releasing your surprisingly fantastic exploration of the Hall and Oates songbook. Above is a very pregnant Inara George, along with the rest of The Bird and The Bee, performing with a 'special guest' from a month ago at the El Rey Theatre in Los Angeles (and if you want to help a blogger out, when you buy this album, buy it through the link on this page).

Professor Bainbridge, You Ain't Wrong, in highlighting the awesomeness that is Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear. Automotive media done right.

Speaking of Jeremy Clarkson, You Ain't Wrong, on applauding the joint operation of nuclear subs by France and Britain. Here's an excerpt to convince you to click the link:

There’s another reason it’s important for the navy to maintain its fleet of boomers. Having a nuclear submarine in your arsenal is what makes a country important. Take that away and what is Britain left with? A lot of potholes, a health system that doesn’t work and a bunch of political leaders who have to make after-dinner speeches to make ends meet. We’d have to be twinned with Ethiopia.

The villagers of Vrontados, You Ain't Wrong, nothing says Easter like pyrotechnics!

Netflix users, You Ain't Wrong, if you stream Metropolis (2001 Anime version, not a remake of the Fritz Lang thing). It's beautiful, it has a decent story, and the English dub isn't too annoying. Recently available for streaming, if you haven't seen it before, indulge yourself and enjoy. And for those that picked up the iPad and the Netflix app, go ahead and use this as the movie you test watching films on that device you Apple fanatics are all in love with at the moment.

Lovers of kickass images, You Ain't Wrong, if you check out this Flickr Blog post of people launching stuff.

Victor Davis Hanson, You Ain't Wrong, when you hold the Obama Administration's feet to the fire. Read the whole thing, but here's VDH's close:

In any isolated circumstance, we are willing to give the president of the United States a pass on a particular disturbing decision. But after 14 months of them, the Obama particulars add up to a remaking of America that is now clear and consistent: Grow government; redistribute income; establish permanent political constituencies of dependents; increase entitlements; hike taxes; demonize “them” while deifying their supposed victims; seek global neutrality abroad; and always play fast and loose with the truth.

I think that's a sufficient amount of aintwrongness for this reborn You Ain't Wrong post. But there was also another feature to these posts that also gets reborn this week. As there is a north and south pole, as there is black, and there is white, as there is Yin and Yang, there is aintwrongness and antiaintwrongness. As you'd expect, antiaintwrongness is the state of being that exemplifies all that is opposite of aintwrongness. Now I know some may quibble and suggest that it would be simpler to call it 'wrong' or 'wrongness', but I posit that antiaintwrongness is different from mere wrongness in that it isn't just the state of wrongness, but it's also the state of being in opposition to all that is aintwrong. You can be aintwrong without being right, just as you can be wrong without being antiaintwrong, but there are those moments when stupidity, stubornness, and general assholery leads to the state of antiaintwrongness, and when those moments happen, I'll be here to point them out.

For the re-inaugural edition of AntiAintWrongness this week, I feel compelled to go after our dear leader, President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama exemplifies the epitome of AntiAintWrongness when he let loose with a 17 minute response to a simple statement by a citizen when she complained that she felt she was 'over-taxed'. If that's not a moment that goes into the AntiAintWrong Hall of Fame, then there shouldn't be an AintAintWrong Hall of Fame. Also, Anne Kornblut at WaPo's 44 blog, you get an antiaintwrong within an antiaintwrong for your attempt to give the President a pass for his extreme douchebaginess. Kudos for reporting it, but a slap on the wrist for doing every journalist trick in the book to try and downplay just what a remarkably out of touch, tetchy, and thin-skinned jerk the President revealed himself as being (once again) with his rambling 17 minute 2500+ word diatribe.

Hope you enjoyed me getting type-y for a change. It's been awhile, I plan on more posts where the words outweigh the pictures hereabouts, but you'll still be getting your daily doses of Photos and LOLObamas. And as the week develops feel free to drop links in the comments as suggestions for the aintwrongness that will get recapped on April 11th.

03 April 2010

President Obama signing a proclamation declaring a Cesar Chavez day. Seems like he's been inflated in importance cause hispanics needed their 'own' civil rights figure, but the UFW accomplished very little, waged an ineffective strike and boycott, and were supported by, and used rhetoric inspired by outright communist.

The sort of divisive idiocy spewed by the UFW and groups like La Raza and MEChA damages the lives of those hispanics that buy into their anti-assimilation, anti-american and anti-business rhetoric. Naturally, Obama supports that sort of nonsense, it fits right in with his various mentors like Ayers and Wright.

02 April 2010

I think it's time to amend the constitution and eliminate the census. It's needlessly expensive, it's needlessly intrusive, it's wastefully executed, and it duplicates work done by municipalities and states.

Rather than apportioning congressional seats through the census count, apportion them by the vote totals in each district every other presidential election year. That'd fix a lot of nonsense (while creating some interesting new nonsense).